President Obama could well consider a military strike in Syria despite the British Parliament rejecting a motion authorizing the UK’s involvement in the conflict.

White House officials told reporters Thursday that the statement
from United States’ closest ally, reluctance from the United
Nations Security Council, and widespread uncertainty in the US
Congress would not be enough to sway Obama from a limited missile
strike on Syrian targets. Obama, who has been criticized for not
consulting with Congress over Syria, met with lawmakers and other
top leaders in a White House conference call Thursday.

“We have seen the result of the Parliament vote in the UK
tonight. The US will continue to consult with the UK government -
one of our closest allies and friends. As we've said, President
Obama's decision-making will be guided by what is in the best
interests of the United States,” said a White House statement
following the meeting. “He believes that there are core
interests at stake for the United States and that countries who
violate international norms regarding chemical weapons need to be
held accountable.”

A White House statement released after the 90-minute
teleconference said the call included, among others, National
Security Adviser Susan Rice, Secretary of State John Kerry,
Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel as well as relevant
committee chairmen and ranking members.

"The views of Congress are important to the President's
decision-making process, and we will continue to engage with
Members as the President reaches a decision on the appropriate US
response to the Syrian government's violation of international
norms against the use of chemical weapons," the White House
statement read.

Hegel also said on a recent trip to the Philippines that "it
is the goal of President (Barack) Obama and our government ...
whatever decision is taken, that it be an international
collaboration and effort," adding that the US would continue
to consult with Britain on the matter.

"Our approach is to continue to find an international
coalition that will act together. And I think you're seeing a
number of countries publicly state their position on the use of
chemical weapons."

When asked whether it was in Assad's power to do anything to
prevent the threat of military action against his country, Hagel
replied that he did not wish to "speculate on hypothetical
situations."

US Rep. Eliot Engel, D-N.Y., top Democrat on the House Foreign
Affairs Committee, said that administration officials failed to
provide any new evidence but only revealed the government has
allegedly intercepted "some discussions and some indications from
a high-level [Syrian] official" regarding use of chemical
weapons. "The main thing
was that they have no doubt that Assad's forces used chemical
weapons," Engel said.

The administration also plans
to release a declassified intelligence report on the recent
chemical weapons attacks in Syria Friday, according to Major
Garrett of CBS News. The White House will reportedly release the
legal justification for military action if Obama orders it, as
well.

“When the president reaches a determination about the
appropriate response…and a legal justification is required to
substantiate or to back up that decision, we’ll produce one on
our own,” White House spokesman Josh Earnest said in the
hours before the British vote.

Thursday’s intelligence presentation did not implicate Assad in
the chemical weapons attack in the suburbs of Damascus, White
House aides told the New York Times, but administration officials
believe they have “enough evidence to carry out a limited
strike that would deter the Syrian government from using these
weapons again.”

Assad and the Syrian government have blamed the chemical attack,
documented in gruesome footage throughout the Internet, on
opposition forces. The White House has admitted that the US has
“no smoking gun” to prove Assad was behind the attack,
leaving enough doubt for the British House of Commons to reject
military action.

While UK MPs debated possible a possible missile strike US
Congress was in the midst of a summer recess, although Senator
Dianne Feinstein of California said a vote would not be
necessary.

“There have been consultations. There will be more
consultations,” she told Time magazine. “This is not to
send troops over, as I understand it…obviously, it would be good
to wait, but if time is of the essence that’s the decision the
administration has to make. I think there is lots of ways of
doing consultations which is adequate.”